[EL] Single-Transferrable Vote

Fri Jan 25 10:34:14 PST 2019

While single-transferable vote sounds nice in the simple description below, I encourage list readers to consider how it works in practice, while keeping in mind how hard states are working to remove obstacles to voter participation and causes of voter confusion with our existing very simple elections. Now swap that current simple system for this:

If there are 5 seats open and 1,000 votes cast, then it takes 201 votes (1/5 + 1) to meet the “quota” that guarantees a win.

Now imagine a candidate receives 287 first-place votes. The candidate only needs 201 (70% of 287) votes to win, so 86 votes, or 30%, of the candidate’s votes will be allocated to the voters’ 2nd choice. But not all of the 287 voters have the same 2nd choice. So for each of those 287 voters’ ballots, the 2nd choice receives 0.3 votes (30% of one vote). So a candidate who was listed 2nd on 95 of those 287 ballots would gain 28.5 votes toward the 201 vote target in the second round of vote-counting (and yes, we would now be announcing fractional votes).

I suppose it is no surprise that such a complicated system is used in the city that is the home of MIT, but can you imagine the voter-education challenge explaining all of this anywhere else?

*	Doug

Douglas Johnson, Ph.D.

Fellow, Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

direct: 310-200-2058

 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103265> Mulroy: Proportional Representation Through The Single Transferable Vote

Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103265> January 24, 2019 7:00 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

The following is the third of three  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103261> guest posts by University of Memphis law professor St <https://www.memphis.edu/law/faculty-staff/steve-mulroy.php> eve Mulroy, sounding some themes from his fascinating new book,  <https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Us-Election-Law-Unskewing/dp/1788117506> Rethinking US Election Law: Unskewing the System:

This is the 3rd of a series of blog posts discussing key arguments from my new book,  <https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781788117500/9781788117500.xml> Rethinking US Election Law: Unskewing The System.  This post advocates proportional representation.

In our winner-take-all election system, 51% of the vote controls 100% of the power.  A consistent, repeated, politically cohesive minority of 40% gets 0% of the power. Over time, they tend to realize the futility of engagement, and drop out, alienated.

Far more intuitive is a system in which 40% of the vote controlled 40% of the power, and 60% of the vote controlled 60% of the power. Instead of winner-take-all, it’s “majority takes most, and minority takes its fair share.”  This is of course proportional representation (PR).

PR is by far more common globally than winner-take-all.  Outside North America, almost every industrialized democracy uses some form of PR at  <http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/default> the national level.

Most PR systems have voters vote for parties rather than candidates, eschew primary elections, or foster the instability of parliamentary systems, making them unsuitable for America.   But there is a way to achieve PR without these problematic features: multimember districts using the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

STV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.  It fills seats with candidates meeting more than a quota, based on the number of seats to be filled.  For example, if 5 seats are to be filled in an election, any candidate with at least 1/5  1st-place votes gets seated.  Any “surplus” votes over that minimum quota are redistributed to remaining candidates based on voters’ 2nd-choice votes in  a subsequent round.  If no candidate meets the quota in a round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and votes for that candidate are redistributed to remaining candidates based on their 2nd-choice votes.  Each time a candidate meets the quota, a slot is filled.  The rounds of redistribution of “surplus” votes and votes from eliminated candidates continues  <http://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esf04.htm> until all seats are filled.

STV has been used for over 70 years in Australia to elect the national Senate. It’s used in the U.S. at the local level in Cambridge, Mass., and Minneapolis, Minn. Wherever it is used, it leads to proportional results.

STV could easily be used at the state and local level, where it is not uncommon to see at-large elections or multimember districts.  States and localities could also convert single-member district systems to at-large or multimember systems for this purpose. This would eliminate, or at least minimize, gerrymandering by eliminating (or minimizing) districting.  It would also eliminate or minimize redistricting, preventing the current cycles of blood sport politics and litigation which begin every 10 years.

How could we adopt STV for Congress? One pending bill,  <http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/default> the Fair Representation Act (FRA),illustrates.  Under FRA, states could choose to adopt STV for House elections.  States with 5 or fewer House members, the state would hold statewide at-large STV elections.  Other states could choose to carve the state up into multimember districts 3-5 seats in size, drawn by nonpartisan redistricting commissions.  The FRA is just one example of a variety of STV approaches.

As an example of Ranked Choice Voting, STV brings all sorts of advantages, including making elections more competitive, giving third parties a realistic chance to influence elections and policy, and discouraging negative campaigning.  As an example of PR, it brings the potential to make elections more truly reflect popular will, ease gridlock, and decrease polarization.  It is the most undervalued of all current proposals for election reform.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103265&title=Mulroy%3A%20%20Proportional%20Representation%20Through%20The%20Single%20Transferable%20Vote> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63> alternative voting systems

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190125/be257178/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190125/be257178/attachment.png>